tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post6221155317639394991..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Introducing the 'psycho-acoustic simulation' defense to copyright infringementBen Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-74243428508783855552009-11-13T13:36:41.969-08:002009-11-13T13:36:41.969-08:00With mp3 the parts that are left, the parts not &q...With mp3 the parts that are left, the parts not "thrown away" are still the "actual sounds fixed in the recording", or at least a portion thereof.<br />What of something like the Zenph "re-recordings" of the CBC Gould recordings. I don't think anyone has tried to argue that the CBC doesn't own at least a proportion of the rights, but all of the sounds in the new recordings are from a piano that was played by a computer long after Gould's death. None of the "actual" sounds "fixed" in the CBC tapes exists in the newly released CD's.<br />If this BlueBeat "simulation" is really a re-synthesis of even the vocal parts, does the letter of the law support it being anyting other than a new recording?<br />Of course there is the small matter of it being identified and represented as a beatles recording on their website...Skeptichttp://users.ece.utexas.edu/~bevans/courses/ee382c/projects/spring04/MihirAnandpara/LitSurveyReport.pdfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-70672230229663330162009-11-06T12:51:55.541-08:002009-11-06T12:51:55.541-08:00OMG I had this same exact idea that Bluebottle or ...OMG I had this same exact idea that Bluebottle or Bluebeat whatever is doing. But then the drugs wore off.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-90429141336313666372009-11-06T09:40:28.249-08:002009-11-06T09:40:28.249-08:00Ooooh - excellent hypotheticals!
What is really ...Ooooh - excellent hypotheticals!<br /><br />What is really copyrighted? The performances and arrangements. So, band members (performers) and authors get paid for their work.<br /><br />Would either hypothetical case apply to copyrighted performances? Mmmmaybe.<br /><br />If you listen to, "Maxwell's Silver Hammer," and hear McCartney's giggle (Lennon was reportedly mooning him from the control booth), and you duplicate that in some sort of electronic simulation, then the performance is indeed being duplicated.<br /><br />If you arrange synthesized or pre-recorded, generic instruments into a tune that sounds or, statistically, closely matches copyrighted material, then the arrangement is being duplicated.<br /><br />If it's "close" (but not an exact match), then this new, derivative work, carries the liability of elevator music. So, Harry Fox would have to get his nickel from you.<br /><br />What if it's an exact match? <br /><br />Wouldn't it be considered a forgery? Wouldn't it be exactly like the performance - indistinguishable from the original? At a minimum, Harry Fox. At most, TRO.<br /><br />But getting, "close," or even, "exact," is difficult, too. When John Fogerty released, "The Old Man Down The Road," he was sued because it sounded too much like, "Run Through The Jungle," from his CCR days (yes, kiddies, you can Google CCR for yourselves). He won by playing both songs in the courtroom - demonstrating the differences and proving the former an original composition. <br /><br />We won't even go into Vanilla Ice and his selective interpretation of "sampling" vs. "stealing." Nor will we touch the consequent flood of "artists" who've followed him (of all colors and sexes, now that there are more than two), seemingly devoid of any creative talent of their own; but hey, this is the age of "Miami Vice," and, "The A-Team," hitting the big screen - creativity, as a genetic trait, simply doesn't exist anymore.<br /><br />I can't imagine a defense any reasonable jury would buy if someone were to play two works, and both sounded exactly the same. (then again, I'm not a slimy attorney, either!)<br /><br />That - that jury - is where BlueBeat will fail. No amount of technological trickery or slight of hand will save them from a jury. What nails their coffin shut is that they're claiming the recordings as theirs AND the likenesses of the original performers, all the marketing, the bands' names and even ownership of performers' names (how else could they claim to release Abbey Road with all four Beatles in full stride on the album cover?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-17244197001090147312009-11-06T06:39:59.697-08:002009-11-06T06:39:59.697-08:00No need for an intellectual discussion about the l...No need for an intellectual discussion about the legal fine-points folks. This is clearly a publicity stunt from these Bluebeat jokers. I'm guessing Bluebeat isn't doing so well as a business and basically has nothing to lose by going down in a hail of legal gunfire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-3864414523596133192009-11-06T04:45:35.115-08:002009-11-06T04:45:35.115-08:00Some thoughts to ponder...
Hypothetical case 1: I...Some thoughts to ponder...<br /><br />Hypothetical case 1: I record and assemble a library of instrument sounds, and then write a software program which chooses from and assembles these original recordings into something which resembles a copyrighted work.<br /><br />Hypothetical case 2: I collect publicly available information and statistics about a copyrighted work. As I gain more information, I can construct an increasingly accurate resemblance of the original.<br /><br />Does it make a difference if the reconstructions are sufficiently accurate to convince an expert, just accurate enough to satisfy the desires of most people, noticably inaccurate but tolerably so, or not accurate at all?<br /><br />Does it make a difference if technology is used to automate the process?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-83964410192763258012009-11-05T19:01:02.744-08:002009-11-05T19:01:02.744-08:00This is awesome. I hope they lose, because they&#...This is awesome. I hope they lose, because they're clearly going against the intent of the law if not the letter, but you have to appreciate the giant brass ones on Blue Beat.Jonhttp://www.manfredmacx.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-52194624381739118752009-11-05T16:21:19.450-08:002009-11-05T16:21:19.450-08:00Valid points taken, the movie industy is next...NE...Valid points taken, the movie industy is next...NEXT!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00160144708376644241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-80203750332841297582009-11-05T14:16:40.811-08:002009-11-05T14:16:40.811-08:00Is this really a, "I ripped, therefore I own,...Is this really a, "I ripped, therefore I own," argument? Seriously?<br /><br />What if I, "psycho-visually simulated," the entire BlueBeat Website -- would *that* be legal, too? (granted, I'd have to clean up the code - can't stand messy code!)<br /><br />Oh, but hey - isn't this what getacoder.com, and sites like it, are doing, too? Nothing like a little outsourced, psycho-audio/visual simulation to save a buck... (aw, shucks - educated programmers and designers don't deserve anywhere near the protection as some doped-up, bi-polar, suicidal rock star, right? Heck! You can work a programmer as much unpaid overtime as you like! Try THAT with a tone-deaf teen-scream-queen... who just happens to be putting together her latest 'recording' on a pirated copy of Logic... wait, bring my pitch down by half an octave, will you? That's better... James Earl Jones has nothing on me!)<br /><br />It seems like the right to, "get paid for the work you do," is falling by the way-side everywhere you look. In fact, doing so is in high demand by, "the people." Encouraging (and, in some cases, forcing) people to "volunteer" (or work for 90% of what they earned) is actually in vogue at the moment. Wanna guess who's taken a high profile role in advocating this? (hint: some of them are members of RIAA or MPAA...or both!)<br /><br />So, whom do you protect? Who's work is worth protecting and paying for, and who's ... isn't? <br /><br />Think carefully about your answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-79081705002131574572009-11-05T13:13:39.022-08:002009-11-05T13:13:39.022-08:00The "psycho-acoustic simulation" that Bl...The "psycho-acoustic simulation" that Blue Beat is going on about would seem likely to be the process of converting WAV files to MP3. As a gross oversimplification, the MP3 conversion process uses "psycho-acoustic" principles to determine what parts of the data can be thrown away with minimal impact on the listener -- this is how MP3 files get to be so small, relative to the original WAV files from the CD.<br /><br />Blue Beat appear to be arguing that what is copyrighted is the precise waveform. As the MP3 does not produce exactly the same waveform as the original CD, it must be a new work!<br /><br />The logic error, I expect, is that the waveform is not the sound -- it is the fixation of the sound. <br /><br />Blue Beat would appear to be screwed by their own citation of section 114, which refers to "directly or indirectly capture the original sounds". I Am Not A Lawyer, but I just don't see how that flies.<br /><br />Still, Blue Beat has brightened up a dreary afternoon. :-)<br /><br /> -- wallow-TAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-13767464011717785252009-11-05T09:42:00.383-08:002009-11-05T09:42:00.383-08:00The Bluebeat situation makes more sense once you r...The Bluebeat situation makes more sense once you realize it's the same outfit that sent C&D letters to Microsoft and others a few years back for allegedly violation Section 1201 by not using "effective" technological measures on their audio devices (mentioned in the Ars Technica article linked to above).Bruce Boydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02247768315353108904noreply@blogger.com